E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Oregon Parks And Recreation Dept / AP file
Mitch Vance, left, and Steve Rumrill, with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, inspect the bottom of a section of the Japanese dock that washed up on Agate Beach in Newport, Ore. in early August.
The Japanese man’s request wasn’t unreasonable. After all, Japan’s tsunami had already swept a Harley-Davidson and a 66-foot concrete dock to U.S. and Canadian shores.
Still, the mayor of a small Washington state city told The Daily World newspaper that he was surprised when he received a postcard from a 77-year-old man in Japan asking him to look out for items he lost in the tsunami a year and a half ago.
“This man felt compelled to write us, looking for what he lost,” Mayor Bill Simpson told The Daily World, based in Aberdeen, Wash. Aberdeen, a working-class coastal town known as the birthplace of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, welcomes visitors with a sign that reads, “Come As You Are.”
The postcard was addressed simply, in impeccable cursive, to the mayor’s office in Aberdeen. The letter writer, named Mr. Saito, hails from the Sapporo ward, which is 300 miles north of the epicenter of the 8.9 earthquake that devastated parts of Japan in March 2011.
Mr. Saito wrote the mayor that he had lost his “collected surveyed amounts’ library cards.”
“To your seashore areas, have you been observing the floated materials?” Mr. Saito asked. “If you find some, please let me know any news.”
Harley-Davidson motorcycle swept away by Japan tsunami to be preserved in museum
In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris was swept into the Pacific Ocean -– 70 percent of which immediately sank.
That still leaves 1.5 million tons, most of it mundane plastic, Styrofoam and junked refrigerators. The Daily World reported that garbage from one cleanup effort in June filled the beds of 70 pickup trucks.
The Guardian of London reported that a research vessel that journeyed into the debris this summer returned predicting that it was bound for the West Coast. The garbage plume was dispersed and measured between 1,000 and 2,000 miles wide.
Rachel La Corte / AP file
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, right, listens as Lynn Albin of the Department of Health describes the Geiger counter readings she's getting from a piece of Styrofoam found on the beach in Ocean Shores, Wash. in June. Officials say that there has been no radiation detected from items that have washed ashore.
There have been remarkable finds, such as a 20-foot fiberglass boat that washed ashore in Washington, the motorcycle still in its crate from the Miyagi prefecture, the ghost ship that appeared, unmanned and unmoored, off the coast of Alaska. A soccer ball belonging to a teenager whose family had lost everything arrived in Alaska. The ball, on which was written the 16-year-old’s name, had been a gift from his teacher and his classmates when he switched schools seven years ago.
Rachel La Corte / AP
Common marine debris from Japan's 2011 tsunami include plastic and Styrofoam.
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Agency is collecting data on the debris; the agency website says that radiation experts do not believe the debris is radioactive.
There’s more debris to come, according to The New York Times; oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer said he expects most of the debris to make landfall in October.
What washes ashore may also serve as a grim reminder of the 3,000 people who went missing in the tsunami, Ebbesmeyer said at a symposium in Port Angeles, Wash., according to the Peninsula Daily News.
“We’re expecting 100 sneakers with bones in them,” he said. “That may be the only remains that a Japanese family is ever going to have of their people that were lost.”
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Russell Crowe gets lost kayaking off Long Island
- 2 dead, 6 wounded after shooting at Sweet 16 birthday party
- Southern California forest fire grows, chases out campers
- Hundreds take part in 'March on Wall Street South' in Charlotte
- Deputy shoots, kills 'out-of-control' inmate at hospital
- Video: Recipes revealed for White House's homebrewed beers
Leave a Comment:
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris was swept into the Pacific Ocean -– 70 percent of which immediately sank."
70% of the Pacific Ocean vanished? Why hasn't this been reported before?
(I copied this from the version of the article I accessed at about 12 PM JST, 4 September 2012. I should hope an editor will glance at the piece soon and Isolde Raftery continues with or starts English lessons.)
Please reread the sentence...I think they clearly stated that 70 percent of the debris sank.
You are the one who needs English lesson, not only is this sentence perfectly clear, but the grammar is absolutely correct. It is very clear that the object of the verb "sank" is the noun "debris."
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris was swept into the Pacific Ocean -– 70 percent of which immediately sank." ->
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris, 70 percent of which immediately sank, was swept into the Pacific Ocean." Other edits would make the sentence similarly unambiguous. Compare:
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 200 tons of debris was swept into the harbor full of boats -– 70 percent of which immediately sank." Which sank, the debris or the boats?
You are unable to distinguish what the subject of the sentence is, and what the object is.
Head back to high school (or is that taught in grammar school?).
boom! reason: The subject of the sentence is "Department (of Ecology)," right?
The problem might be clearer if nonsense words are substituted for those in the original:
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of jabberwocky was plooded into the hornswaggler -– 70 percent of which immediately croided." Again, here one can only conclude that the hornswaggler (whatever that might be) croided (whatever process that might denote). We look to the nearest antecedent to find out what the "which" means.
Of course, no one will contend that the meaning (viz., that 70 percent of the debris sank) intended cannot be understood when the original sentence is read, but that does not mean that the sentence is grammatically correct. Anyone who has managed to communicate something in a language he or she has only recently begun to study can attest to the redundancy built into most languages and the extent to which communicators are able to deduce intended meanings from lexis.
English, nevertheless, does have, along with all other languages, acceptable grammatical forms, and fluent users of the language can tell when something is correctly formed grammatically or not: if that were not the case, the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" could not be recognized as grammatically correct (albeit semantically nonsensical).
Though the sentence form used in the original ("In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris was swept into the Pacific Ocean -– 70 percent of which immediately sank.") may have been accepted, say, in pre-Johnson times--Pepys' diaries, for example, are peppered with constructions that would be blue-penciled by any contemporary editor--it is not acceptable now.
Allow me to add my regret at having disparaged Isolde Raftery's facility with English: news writers work under various pressures and cannot be faulted for occasional mistakes. It was the editor who failed here.
The real question this article brings is how much of the material washing up on our shores is actually poison/radioactive waste?
The comment may be cute if it originated from a child. So just where does 70% of an ocean sink to in your tiny little brain? To the center of the Earth? Did it put our molten core out of fire? Are we going to stop rotating?
Thank you, whenceonewonders. While I am not the perfect grammarian, I do notice when people who make their living with words fail. And, I appreciate that you took the time to correct the writer/editor.
It reminds me of a newspaper article I read some years back. The sportswriter was describing a putt that Tiger Woods made. Apparently, the putt didn't roll straight. The sportswriter wrote that Tiger, in indicating the roll of the ball, waved his hand like a fish. It got me to wondering exactly how a fish waves.
Peace!
This thread is hilarious. After much thought, and deep reflection on this weighty question, I have concluded that WhenceOneWonders is correct.
*sigh*
So many people are English dropouts. A huge problem on forums is that many people, who do not understand a subject properly, pretend to act as though they are well-versed in said subject and convince others of their nonsense. This is most definitely a case of "the blind leading the blind."
No wonder Japan lost WW II.
Linguist here. English has a ton of ambiguities (owing to the loss of our case system), however a lot of the ambiguity can be resolved through context. The sentence I use with my students to illustrate this is "I shot an elephant in my pajamas." Either the human can be wearing the pajamas or an elephant, however it is common knowledge that elephants don't wear pajamas. Therefore the reading that one immediately gets is that the human is wearing the pajamas. Similarly in this case the Pacific Ocean cannot sink, therefore the reading one gets is that it is the debris that is doing the sinking. There are sentences where you definitely need to clarify: "I hit the man with the hat" is one such example. You can hit a person with a hat, and you can hit a person wearing a hat. In this sentence further clarification would be needed.
WhenceOneWonders...keep wondering. You must be one of those uneducated arrogant opinionated fools I have to deal with in my classes. May I suggest you go back to school. That sentence was correct and got the point through. You might as well go start collecting the debris washing ashore...because that is the only job you are going to ever have for a long long time with your poor intelligence, poor education and poor English. And my my aren't you opinionated! Let me guess...you are a proud gun-carrying Anglo American who wants a $80,000 job as a business executive. The placard in my neighborhood reads, "Weapons are not welcome, and stupid men with smart weapons are certainly not welcome!"
KamKam: Are you disagreeing with me? I made the same point you do in #1.12 in the fourth paragraph of #1.5.
In the same paragraph I made the point that second language learners can make themselves understood despite mistaken (or idiosyncratic, if you must) grammar: if I write "Ich ist krank," most reasonably proficient users of German will understand that I mean to write I am sick; if I write "新宿が行きました," users of Japanese will understand that I mean to write that I went to Shinjuku. That the meaning of utterances or sentences can be understood does not necessitate that those sentences be judged grammatically correct; Chomsky's example shows that grammatical correctness does not guarantee that an utterance or sentence makes sense.
Dr. MS: My word! You've certainly been able to deduce a lot about me from my few comments. "Uneducated," "arrogant," "opinionated," "fool," "poor intelligence," and "poor English" are relative terms that cannot be agreed upon without agreeing on how education levels and so forth are to be measured. Regarding those points, let's agree that, fair enough, you're correct.
I don't know how you got the "gun-carrying" part though. It's true that I once touched a gun--this was in the early 1960s when as a kid I happened upon a gun that had been used in a robbery the previous evening--but I've never used one and have (of course) never owned one (and furthermore the laws in my country effectively bar private ownership of guns). I fear also that I do not wish a job as a business executive (at any salary). Finally, I'm neither Anglo nor American (and do not live in the United States).
Is there something what I actually wrote that you disagree with (and, if so, have you any specific criticism), or was it simply my tone? If the latter, please accept my apologies.
As if most people would have no clue this is a possibility, we are kindly reminded. Thank you so much sir.
Only 100? My dog has brought back more than five times that amount, and he is not able to leave my backyard!
That sounded creepy boom!. You got something your trying to tell us? a little graveyard in your backyard perhaps?
As I walk our beaches now the trash has a whole different meaning. So very sad, it's hard to imagine such a sudden and totally unexpected disaster. I find I don't care for disaster and end of the world movies much anymore as each new real life horror kind of erases the entertainment value of the movies for me. Poor people must still feel like they're living in a never ending nightmare.
Yeah, but we try to make the best of it.
To paraphrase a quote spoken by the character Celie in the movie "The Color Purple" :
"experts do not believe the debris is radioactive."
Why hasn't this been confirmed? It seems to me if people can pick up 70 truck loads of debris then there should be a way to check to see if any of it is radio active. I would have preferred to read of the 70 truck loads picked up NONE of it was Radio Active!
Confussed-1578043: The debris was washed into the ocean days before the release of radioactive materials began.
I'm sure it has been confirmed that experts do not believe it's radioactive.
Under the picture of the guy and the lady it says "no radiation has been detected"
It has also been washed for over a year in the ocean so any surface particles of radiation are likely long gone.
Radioactivity is not like glue. It washes away easily. If there was raioactive contaminiation it would be the water not the objects floating in water.
Why "100 sneakers?" Has there been an inventory? If so, why weren't they snagged up already? Very odd.
Because everyone has two legs making it an even number. Well almost everyone ;-)
"100" has more than one meaning in the English language. If I said "I told you 100 times", it in no way infers an actual, specific count. The comment about the 100 sneakers simply means "a lot".
100 is an probabliltiy based on the number of known dead the assumption that they all had 2 legs and were wearing sneakers and an estimated percentage of how much would float that far and long.
It would have been clearer if the comment had been transcribed as "a hundred" instead of "100," which makes the statement sound inappropriately precise. Cf. 'a million different things" as opposed to "1,000,000 different things."
Whenceonewonders, you are a person with common sense and thanks. I am a Canadian living in Tokyo and lived through the big earthquake it was very scary and incrediably sad for so many thousands of people in this country and abroad.
Regarding the Fukushima plant, the radiation and the things that were swept out to sea by the Tsunami could not have contained any nuclear activity on it. The radiation plant stayed intact on the ground and so it took time before the radiation became a real issue like weeks and months and not in the first hours after the Tsunami took place due to the operators having to release water into the sea that contained nuclear radiation.
The older generation which the majority were in the hardest hit areas generally are very proud people who do not look for handouts and are very hard at work trying to get their lives back to normal.
That plant stayed intact on the ground? So what were the hydrogen explosions in the days immediately following the tsunami and quake all about? Didn't meltdowns occur in the hours and days afterward?
There is no evidence that I know of saying radiation contaminated things swept to the sea, but much radiated water was released into the sea in the days following. The plant did NOT stay intact, part of it exploded (although the reactor stayed intact) and radiation became a big problem soon after the earthquake. Many people near the plants still cannot return home because of radiation and will not be able to for decades in some areas. Radiation was a major fear within hours and a major issue very quickly after.
tforu from Canada...you need to put some commas, colons, hyphens, etc. in your sentences man! It reads like a dribble without clarity, order and purpose. I had to put a whole bunch of punctuations in your statements to figure out what you were saying, though your experience must have been horrific...and my sympathies to you for that! Before you start thanking WhenceWonder Boy, you need to edit, edit and edit your statements...at least a little bit! Be safe!
I was at the Oregon coast just today ~ looking out on the Pacific. I only thought good things. I hope to never see any piece of your home~ now tsunami debris ~ from your loss. I just have to think ~Japan ~to be in awe of your struggle for normalcy. We hear very little now but with such a cataclysmic event nothing in your country went untouched. I pray God to steady your lives and bless your path forward to comfort security. He is a very present help in time of trouble.
i am glad they revised this headline, the 1st healine look like a tsunami was coming
Pretty sad that all you have and own, could be wiped out in seconds - tossed into the ocean never to be seen again - yet some of it floats along and eventually winds up on another shore - like messages in bottles. Only some of this is quite huge. Docks, boats, parts of homes, motorcycles, yet much has sunk into the abyss of the ocean as well. How fragile our planet is. How tragic the natural disasters. They happen daily, some of it we never hear of, and how cruel some people can be to make fun of other people's problems.
Likelihood of the man getting his things back: low.
The likely hood of you being heartless is staring us right in the face.
I don't understand what it is that prompts people to make such stupid comments as I have read here. This is a story of of an old man who has probably lost everything dear to him, and his desperate, lonely quest to find even a scrap or remnant. Why can't it be read and perceived as just that - someone seeking help from a stranger and a devastating loss. It's difficult for to imagine the loss that these people suffered, but little stories like this open up paths to empathy and connection.
Quoting WhenceOneWonders:
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris, 70 percent of which immediately sank, was swept into the Pacific Ocean." Other edits would make the sentence similarly unambiguous."
This is far less clear than the way the article is written:
"In Washington state, the Department of Ecology estimates that 5 million tons of debris was swept into the Pacific Ocean -– 70 percent of which immediately sank."
The way you rewrote this sentence implies that the debris sank before it was swept into the Pacific Ocean. Now, I'm not an expert when it comes to grammar, so I can't say with any amount of certainty whether or not the article's way of wording this is correct; but if you are going to correct somebody, you might want to ensure you're wording isn't anymore confusing than the original.
US Citizen-2342641: I agree with you (and hence my further remarks at #1.5. Thank you.
Sure Hashi, the mayor will get right on this.
It is Mr.Saito not Hashi.You sound like a bigot.It seems that your mind is not so great after all but very very small.
Mr. Saito's letter breaks my heart.A humble man with a hopeful request,yet posters would rather critique the author and make snide remarks about World War II.I am wishing for a miracle that the mayor does find Mr.Saito's property.
"What washes ashore may also serve as a grim reminder of the 3,000 people who went missing in the tsunami": it was closer to 20,000 people than 3,000 (although not quite 20,000).
"the Sapporo ward": Sapporo is a city that comprises 10 wards, not a ward itself. (My guess is that Saito lived in Miyagi Prefecture at the time of the earthquake and subsequnetly moved to Sapporo.)